Post by Quorthon on May 2, 2005 10:58:16 GMT -5
Closer
2004
COLOR
Columbia TriStar
MPAA Rating: R
Directed by: Mike Nichols
USA
Well, here’s the movie that every man wanted to see because Natalie Portman was supposed to be nude in it, however unbelievable that very idea may seem. Well, she again plays a seemingly innocent sweetheart again, although she is a stripper. But this movie is a lot more than that, and thankfully, is actually pretty deep.
The story revolves, quite simply, around four individuals—two American women and two British men—who spend five years revolving around each other creating four distinct little relationships and a helluva lot of personal confusion and drama. The ideas of sex and relationships seem like games to two characters, while the other two seem like pawns in the game. However, this role is reversed at least once per character. Like the now classic “American Beauty,” each character is individually explored, and a large amount of depth is shown. Four very distinct personalities appear, and seeing how they interact is entertaining and believable. Overall, it plays a bit like a parable with punishing moments following the many apparently foolish decisions. This is also a first (at least for me), as I’ve never seen Julia Roberts portray such a sexually conflicted individual—on top of which, the film creates a clear mental image of her performing oral sex.
The Good:
--The writing—many conversations are quick and to the point, but very witty.
--The direction.
--The acting—excellent and believable characters.
--The humor and drama all appear in equal and comfortable doses, and let us get to know the characters.
--The depth of the individual characters.
Didn’t Hurt It, Didn’t Help It:
--Good atmosphere & music.
--Good cinematography, the movie, like “Lost in Translation,” really feels at times like an independent film.
The Bad:
--Nothing really, although, as deep as the characters are, at times it seems none of them are what would be called: “likable.”<br>
The Ugly:
--Is this the end of Natalie Portman’s innocence? Nahhh…
Memorable Scene:
--Jude Law’s heavy flirting via internet with Clive Owen.
Acting: 9/10
Story: 9/10
Atmosphere: 8/10
Cinematography: 8/10
Character Development: 10/10
Special Effects/Make-up: 0/10 (none)
Nudity/Sexuality: 7/10 (leans more to near-constant sexual dialogue, and a visit to a stripclub)
Violence/Gore: 2/10 (no gore, only brief violence)
Music: 7/10
Direction: 9/10
Cheesiness: 0/10
Crappiness: 0/10
Overall: 9/10
This is, overall, a great dramatic film, and—at least to me—one that would make a good “date” movie (I also consider “True Romance” to be a great “date” movie). Oh, and Natalie Portman, while sexy, is never totally nude. Definitely worth seeing.
2004
COLOR
Columbia TriStar
MPAA Rating: R
Directed by: Mike Nichols
USA
Well, here’s the movie that every man wanted to see because Natalie Portman was supposed to be nude in it, however unbelievable that very idea may seem. Well, she again plays a seemingly innocent sweetheart again, although she is a stripper. But this movie is a lot more than that, and thankfully, is actually pretty deep.
The story revolves, quite simply, around four individuals—two American women and two British men—who spend five years revolving around each other creating four distinct little relationships and a helluva lot of personal confusion and drama. The ideas of sex and relationships seem like games to two characters, while the other two seem like pawns in the game. However, this role is reversed at least once per character. Like the now classic “American Beauty,” each character is individually explored, and a large amount of depth is shown. Four very distinct personalities appear, and seeing how they interact is entertaining and believable. Overall, it plays a bit like a parable with punishing moments following the many apparently foolish decisions. This is also a first (at least for me), as I’ve never seen Julia Roberts portray such a sexually conflicted individual—on top of which, the film creates a clear mental image of her performing oral sex.
The Good:
--The writing—many conversations are quick and to the point, but very witty.
--The direction.
--The acting—excellent and believable characters.
--The humor and drama all appear in equal and comfortable doses, and let us get to know the characters.
--The depth of the individual characters.
Didn’t Hurt It, Didn’t Help It:
--Good atmosphere & music.
--Good cinematography, the movie, like “Lost in Translation,” really feels at times like an independent film.
The Bad:
--Nothing really, although, as deep as the characters are, at times it seems none of them are what would be called: “likable.”<br>
The Ugly:
--Is this the end of Natalie Portman’s innocence? Nahhh…
Memorable Scene:
--Jude Law’s heavy flirting via internet with Clive Owen.
Acting: 9/10
Story: 9/10
Atmosphere: 8/10
Cinematography: 8/10
Character Development: 10/10
Special Effects/Make-up: 0/10 (none)
Nudity/Sexuality: 7/10 (leans more to near-constant sexual dialogue, and a visit to a stripclub)
Violence/Gore: 2/10 (no gore, only brief violence)
Music: 7/10
Direction: 9/10
Cheesiness: 0/10
Crappiness: 0/10
Overall: 9/10
This is, overall, a great dramatic film, and—at least to me—one that would make a good “date” movie (I also consider “True Romance” to be a great “date” movie). Oh, and Natalie Portman, while sexy, is never totally nude. Definitely worth seeing.
